Statement of William Wood
H.R. 1471, Hearing on Child Support and
Fatherhood Proposals, June 28, 2001
WRITTEN TESTIMONY FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCES
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE
William Wood is a
Business Management and Technology Consultant volunteering his time to help families and
children in the State of North Carolina and around the country and he is a principal
custodian of a 9 year-old little girl. This testimony, in the form of a legal
memorandum, and personal commentary and interpretation are offered for consideration on my
own behalf. This is a personal representation and opinion and not that of any other
group or organization.
Custody and Fathers Legal Ramifications
are special fundamental rights under the Constitution.
In the 1920s, the Court asserted that the right of parents to raise and
educate their children was a fundamental type of liberty protected
by the Due Process Clause. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535
(1925). Over the years, the courts have often asserted that parental rights are
constitutionally protected such as a parent's right to the care, custody, management
and companionship of [his or her] minor children which is an interest "far more
property rights (where a mother had her rights to custody
jeopardized by a competing custody decree improperly obtained in another state). May v.
Anderson, 345 US 528, 533 (1952). In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479,
502 (1965), Justice White in his concurring opinion offered this Court has had
occasion to articulate that the liberty entitled to protection under the Fourteenth
Amendment includes the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children,"
and "the liberty . . . to direct the upbringing and education of children," and
that these are among "the basic civil rights of man." (citations omitted).
Justice White then added;
These decisions affirm
that there is a "realm of family life which the state cannot enter" without
substantial justification. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 .
Recently (on June 5,
2000), after nearly 100 year of consistent support for parental rights, the Court stated;
The liberty interest at issue
the interest of parents
in the care, custody, and control of their children--is perhaps the oldest of the
fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court
[I]t cannot now
be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the
fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and
control of their children. Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 2000 (99-138)
Souter) We have long recognized that a parent's interests in the nurture,
upbringing, companionship, care, and custody of children are generally protected by the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g.,Meyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535
(1925); Stanleyv. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 651 (1972); Wisconsinv.Yoder,
406 U. S. 205, 232 (1972); Quilloin
v. Walcott, 434 U. S. 246, 255
(1978); Parhamv. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 602 (1979); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753 (1982); Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 720 (1997).
As we first acknowledged in Meyer,
the right of parents to "bring up children," 262 U. S., at 399, and
"to control the education of their own" is protected by the Constitution, id., at 401. See also Glucksberg, supra,
Souter then opens the very next paragraph indicating the Constitutionality of parental
rights are a settled principle. In fact, it is a well-established
principle of constitutional law that custody of ones minor children is a fundamental
right. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982), Stanley v. Illinois,
405 U.S. 645 (1972).
Without dispute the Troxel case is UNANIMOUS in its establishment that
parental rights are constitutionally protected rights. Even the dissenting judges,
not agreeing with the remedy, recognized that parental rights are Constitutional
Rights. From the dissents in Troxel:
[A] right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is
among the "unalienable Rights" with which the Declaration of Independence
proclaims "all Men ... are endowed by their Creator."
is also among the "othe[r] [rights] retained by the people" which the Ninth
Amendment says the Constitution's enumeration of rights "shall not be construed to
deny or disparage."
Kennedy) I acknowledge
visitation cases may arise where [considering appropriate
protection by the state] the best interests of the child standard would give insufficient
protection to the parent's constitutional right to raise the child without undue
intervention by the state
is a beginning point that commands general, perhaps unanimous, agreement in our separate
opinions: As our case law has developed, the [parent] has a constitutional right to
determine, without undue interference by the state, how best to raise, nurture, and
educate the child. The parental right stems from the liberty protected by the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U. S. 390, 399, 401 (1923); Pierce v. Society of Sisters,
268 U. S. 510, 534-535 (1925); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321
U. S. 158, 166 (1944); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S.
645, 651-652 (1972); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205,
232-233 (1972); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U. S. 745, 753-754
(1982). Pierce and Meyer, had they been decided in recent times,
may well have been grounded upon First Amendment principles protecting freedom of speech,
belief, and religion.
[T]hey long have been interpreted to have found in Fourteenth
Amendment concepts of liberty an independent right of the parent in the "custody,
care and nurture of the child," free from state intervention. Prince,
supra, at 166.
Rights must be afforded strict scrutiny or a heightened scrutiny so stringent
as to be utterly indistinguishable from strict scrutiny.
Amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law. The Court has long recognized that the
Due Process Clause guarantees more than fair process. Washington v.
Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997). It also includes a substantive component
that provides heightened protection against government interference with certain
fundamental rights and liberty interests. Id., at 720; see also Reno v.
Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-302 (1993). Any denial of Due Process must be tested
by the totality of the facts because a lack of Due Process may constitute
a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 26 (1964) (quoting from Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S.
455, 461-462 (1942) where it was noted that any violation of any of the first Nine
Amendments to the Constitution could also constitute a violation of Due Process). "[T]he court must be vigilant to
scrutinize the attendant facts with an eye to detect and a hand to prevent violations of
the Constitution by circuitous and indirect methods. Constitutional provisions for the
security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and it is the duty of
courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any
stealthy encroachments thereon.' Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 , 6 S.
Ct. 524, 535 (29 L. Ed. 746); Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 304, 41 S. Ct.
261, supra." (as cited from Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28, 32). And it is further established that any law impinging on an
individuals fundamental rights is subject to strict scrutiny (San Antonio
School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). In order to withstand
strict scrutiny, the law must advance a compelling state interest by the least restrictive
means available. Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984). And by
fiat, any judge interpreting, presiding, or sitting in judgment of any custody case under
the law must apply this same standard. Justice Stevens in Troxel
comments on the appropriate standard of review stating:
opinions of the plurality, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Souter
recognize such a [parental constitutional] right, but curiously none of them articulates
the appropriate standard of review. I would apply strict scrutiny to infringements
of fundamental rights.
is the courts rule, not the exception. In determining which rights
are fundamental, Judges are not left at large to decide cases in light of their personal
and private notions[;]
it cannot be said that a Judge's responsibility to determine
whether a right is basic and fundamental in this sense vests him with unrestricted
personal discretion. Griswold at 493 w/FN7 (A case dealing with marriage
relationship privacy). The same court noted there is a "realm of family
life which the state cannot enter without substantial justification. (quoting Prince
v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166). In Stanley v. Illinois, 405 US 645, 651
(1972), the court indicated that the State must demonstrate a powerful
countervailing interest stressing that;
parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and,
absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection." A parent's interest in the
companionship, care, custody and management of his or her children rises to a
constitutionally secured right, given the centrality of family life as the focus for
personal meaning and responsibility.
~85% to 90% sole maternal custody is Gender Bias in PRACTICE.
The US Supreme Court
asserted in the now famous VMI case, United States v. Virginia, 116 S. Ct.
2264 (1996), that gender-based matters at both the state and federal level, must meet
a level of heightened scrutiny and without solidly compelling state interests
are unacceptable. In the following excerpt, all references to the female gender have
been replaced with the male gender. And since this is a decision with its locus in
gender-equality, this replacement is as valid as the original language or the VMI
decision is utter hypocrisy. Opinion held;
Neither federal nor state government acts compatibly with equal protection
when a law or official policy denies to [men or fathers], simply because they are [men or
fathers], full citizenship stature-equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in
and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities. To meet the
burden of justification, a State must show ``at least that the [challenged] classification
serves `important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed' are
`substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.'" The
justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to
litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents,
capacities, or preferences of males and females. The heightened review standard
applicable to sex-based classifications does not make sex a proscribed classification, but
it does mean that categorization by sex may not be used to create or perpetuate the legal,
social, and economic inferiority of [men or fathers]. (all citations omitted).
Benign justifications proffered in defense of categorical exclusions,
however, must describe actual state purposes, not rationalizations for actions in fact
Further, states must
demonstrate an exceedingly persuasive justification (United States v.
Virginia at 2274-75, 2286) for why such discrimination continues IN PRACTICE when the
statutes are facially neutral. Since "our Nation has had a long and unfortunate
history of sex discrimination," (Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 684
(1973)) isnt it time to drive a final stake through the heart of this history in
practices in family law seize upon a group men and fathers - who have
historically suffered discrimination in family relations, and rely on the relics of this
past discrimination under the tender years doctrine, reclassified as the best
interests of the child, as a justification for heaping on additional family
destructive disadvantages (adapted and modified from footnote 22, Frontiero, 411 U.S.
677, 688). There can be absolutely no doubt that father absence is destructive
to children, yet family courts, and family lawyers perpetuate this cycle every day by the
thousands across America. In fact, Gender Bias against fathers in family courts is
beginning to gain WIDESPREAD publicity by various newspapers and magazines, some of which
are even comparing todays family courts to Nazi-Germany and Hitlers child
of the state philosophy (the US parens
patriae doctrine, i.e., state as parent). Fully developing the Gender-Bias
portion of this paper would take about 10 pages or more because the references and
citations of well-known media publications are so numerous.
No matter what
rational is employed by family court judges, absent special circumstances, which question
parental fitness, equal physical and legal custody is constitutionally mandated.
Some of the matters that might call fitness into question would include; false claims of
domestic violence, false claims of child abuse, and false claims of child sexual abuse
which are OVERWHELMINGLY alleged in divorce actions by mothers to destroy the father and
seize all family assets as well as the children; or, alternatively, VERIFIED claims of the
foregoing as opposed to simply adjudicated claims without tangible evidence, or in
the case of domestic violence, the currently employed super-Orwellian standards.
If the ~85% to 90%
sole maternal custody, were exactly opposite, rabid feminist shrieks of discrimination,
salted with a good dose of all women are victims and all men are evil, would be heard all
around the world. And feminists wouldnt be burning just bras, they would
likely be burning images of men and children in effigy. Congress wouldnt
hesitate to condemn this, yet this commentary from New Hampshire legislator, Gary Gilmore,
indicates how most men are ambushed when they walk into todays family
courts. The statement below is the RULE, rather than the exception, of how
naīve fathers are about the anti-father courtroom bias;
I was naīve and I thought the court system would give you a sense
of fairness and in my own experience, I found it was extremely unfair
it was a travesty and a joke. Youre treated like a criminal even though you
havent done anything wrong at all
A system like that actively
discriminates against men.
The standard for a compelling state interest while applying
strict scrutiny dictates equal physical and legal custody to both
natural parents if fitness is not in controversy.
In Wisconsin v.
Yoder the Court took up a challenge to Wisconsin's compulsory education laws and found
that even when claiming a purpose of benefiting the child, the state must demonstrate
convincing evidence that its intended policy will actually bring about its professed goal.
Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205, 221 & 232-33 (1972).
state interest in child custody matters finds its nexus between the best
interests of the child doctrine and strict scrutiny. Infringing upon
fundamental rights [Constitutionally protected parental rights] dictates that the state
show the infringement serves a compelling state interest with no
Constitutionally satisfactory alternative to meet that interest. Failure to use such
non-infringing means, or other Constitutional alternative in making custody determinations
causes the state or order to fail the required scrutiny test and therefore violates
parental Due Process rights under the 14th Amendment Santosky v. Kramer, 455
US 745 (1982); and (from a quote at 766,767):
there is still reason to believe that positive, nurturing parent-child relationships
exist, the [state's] parens patriae interest favors preservation, not severance, of
natural familial bonds. The State registers no gain towards its declared goals when
it separates children from the custody of fit parents.
is clearly about the termination of parental rights, but the standard
family court order of being an every other weekend visitor may be just as traumatic
and potentially even greater, like living with a cancer patient that slowly dies.
Even a principal adjudication of less than equal custody is still a substantial
infringement upon constitutionally protected fundamental liberty interests.
In less than equal custody, a parents relationship with their child(ren) is forcibly
ripped away from them and then they are forced to pay for the destruction of their
rights. The non-custodial parents regular influence in shaping the child's
development is virtually eradicated. A father cannot appropriately, or positively
influence a childs behavior without physical custody. The Santosky
Court also noted:
Even when blood relationships are strained, parents retain vital interest in
preventing irretrievable destruction of their family life; if anything, persons faced with
forced dissolution of their parental rights have more critical need for procedural
protections than do those resisting state intervention into ongoing family affairs.
Also, it is
interesting that the Santoskly court also clarified in its holding [t]he
fair preponderance of the evidence standard
violates the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
A preponderance standard does not fairly
allocate the risk of an erroneous factfinding between the State and the natural parents.
The Court goes on to explain the risks in terminating parental rights. Yet, in
reality, when one parent is relegated to a weekend visitor, their Constitutional rights in
the care, custody, management and companionship of their child(ren) have been
substantially eliminated, and without question, infringed upon.
recognizing the fundamental Constitutional rights that ALL parents possess, not only
mothers, but fathers too, demands that the deprivation of the fundamental right of
parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their
children constitutes a significant interference with, (citations omitted) the
exercise of a fundamental Constitutional right. Deprivation of fundamental liberty
rights for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable
injury. Elrod v. Burns, 96 S.Ct. 2673; 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). (Note
Justice Kennedys Troxel remarks on page 2 about parental rights under the
First Amendment, the Amendment at issue in Elrod.)
legislative body has a burden to society to weigh the studies and information
demonstrating the devastating affects of father absence on children (a matter worthy of
judicial notice) and then consider, as noted above, the ramifications of effectively
removing fathers from their children. After all, there is now so much data and
information about father absence that in custody matters, continued maternal preferences
rise to the Due Process legal bar. The [r]eality of private biases and
possible injury they might inflict [are] impermissible considerations under the Equal
Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Palmore v. Sidoti, 104
S Ct 1879; 466 US 429.
Best Interests of the child
noting in Troxel, are Justices Souter and Thomas concurring commentary. They
implicate a potential willingness to address, adjudicate, and possibly clarify the free-ranging
best-interests-of-the-child standard (Souters characterization of this standard).
worth noting, both Justices Scalia and Kennedy clearly recognized the Constitutional
protections of parental rights. Though they do not agree it appears Justice Scalia
noted that part of the problem is the indeterminacy of standards in custody
cases suggesting that many definitions, such as parent would have to be crafted and he
would throw it back to the legislature to define standards and terms.
Herein implicating the standard is a problem.
Justice Kennedys dissent, he elaborated that if upon remand or reconsideration of
the Troxel case, if there were still problems with the decision regarding parental
rights, consideration of that and other issues at the US Supreme Court might be warranted,
then went on to state:
include ... the protection the Constitution gives parents against state-ordered visitation
but also the extent to which federal rules for facial challenges to statutes control in
state courts. These matters, however, should await some further case
It must be
recognized, of course, that a domestic relations proceeding in and of itself can
constitute state intervention that is so disruptive of the parent-child relationship that
the constitutional right of a [parent] to make certain basic determinations for the
child's welfare becomes implicated. The best interests of the child standard has at times
been criticized as indeterminate, leading to unpredictable results. See, e.g.,
American Law Institute, Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution 2, and n. 2
(Tentative Draft No. 3, Mar. 20, 1998)
Our system must confront more often the
reality that litigation can itself be so disruptive that constitutional protection may be
required; and I do not discount the possibility that in some instances the best interests
of the child standard may provide insufficient protection to the parent-child relationship
guidance should await a case in which a State's highest court has considered all of the
facts in the course of elaborating the protection afforded to parents by the laws of the
State and by the Constitution itself.
best interests of the child standard came about for several reasons; 1) The
tender years doctrine was repudiated, 2) Judicial Economy needed a [non]
standard with a strong presumption of nearly limitless discretion to prevent constant
litigation, 3) State legislatures were averse to taking up politically charged issues
defining real standards, 4) It was more convenient to allow the judicial branch to process
as many no-fault divorces as quickly as possible [judicial economy]
while ignoring the root cause which necessitates divorce reform, 5) A HUGE volume of
Family Lawyers, psychologists, and other special interests have a substantial
financial stake in the break-up, destruction, and butchery of marriage. (it
is extremely important to note here that in my extensive research over a few years, there
are a few judges, and a few lawyers who have convinced me that not ALL of them are evil.
Unfortunately, they are the exception as opposed to the rule), 6) NOW and
feminists have a long history of marriage hatred and have lobbied AGAINST most, if not
all, real attempts at reform.
In LAW (as opposed
to tyranny), the clarity, singularity, and sharpness of absolutes makes for simple yes
or no judgments. There is no argument, there is no fight, and there is
no money to be made by this for the family lawyers. Absolutes of right
and wrong, truth and lie, or remedy for a wrong are fundamental pillars of rule by
law, the backbone of a cohesive society. The alternative is rule by men
which inevitably leads to tyranny, and the worst chapters in human history. Yet
ideas and principles of absolutes are anathema to a system of rule by men who
spout their hatred, with derisions and scorn for such ideas of absolutes,
branding them as intolerance. Where there is clarity, there is no
argument. Where there is chaos, mayhem, disorder, and destruction, there is the
Mercedes, Country Club, Golf, or fancy home for those who work in the aftermath of such
destruction (for arguing on behalf of their clients). The realm of family
law is generally opposed to any REAL standard that might have accountability and has
widely embraced the best interests of the child [non-]standard.
only custodial determination for two fit parents, is equal custody. This survives
strict scrutiny, does not violate Equal Protection or Due Process, is in the
best interests of the child, and is constitutionally sound.
notion" that "generally it is the man's primary responsibility to provide a home
and its essentials" can no longer justify a [state-sponsored PRACTICE] that
discriminates on the basis of gender. No longer is the female destined solely for
the home and the rearing of the family, and only the male for the marketplace and the
world of ideas. Stanton v. Stanton, 421 US 7, 10 (1975). After all, the
Court has also noted that "a (once) married father who is separated or divorced from
a mother and is no longer living with his child" could not constitutionally be
treated differently from a currently married father living with his child. Quilloin
v. Walcott, 434 US 246, 255-256 (1978).
Even Laws and court
procedures that are "fair on their faces" but administered "with an evil
eye or a heavy hand" are discriminatory and violate the equal protection clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 US 356 (1886). This
principle is so fundamental to our system of justice (i.e. the rule of law),
that as it approaches 125 years old, it still stands as not only unoverturned, but
uncontroversial case law.
adapted from a Joint Custody brief from an unknown California attorney] There is
logically only one possible distribution of custody among two parents that is the
least restrictive, and that is an award dividing custody equally between the
parents. Any other custodial award determination will immediately impair one parents
fundamental right in an amount greater than what would otherwise exist in an equal custody
not to say that an award under which one parent received an extra day of the year for some
logistical reason, would necessarily be unreasonable and therefore violate due
process. Nor would it violate due process to award custody unequally where a parent
voluntarily waves their fundamental custodial rights in some amount. And it would be
completely irrational to assume that a court could offend due process by making an unequal
custody determination, in the event that a parent is criminally or otherwise unfit to
exercise custody over his or her child. But where both parents are reasonably fit
custodians, and both assert their full fundamental rights to custody in court, the only
determination that does not violate due process is equal custody.
this obvious logic, neither the state, nor the court, acknowledges what should be an
obvious conclusion of law. Rather, it is routine in custody determinations, where
both parents assert their fundamental rights, for the court to ignore the parent's rights
entirely and instead concentrate only on the state's interest in the child. We
disagree that by itself, the best interests of the child is a talisman to dissolve all
constitutional protections (United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1
(1973). Strict scrutiny is an extremely high bar to legislation that presumes a law
is invalid unless it satisfies both the elements of the test, and as already demonstrated,
any law or court order that determines custody unequally where both parents are reasonably
fit, and both assert their fundamental rights, cannot pass that bar. A rather
articulate citation on what is truly best for the child was noted in the New Jersey Court
"The greatest benefit a court can bestow upon children is to insure that
they shall not only retain the love of both parents but shall at all times and constantly
be deeply imbued with love and respect for both parents." Smith v. Smith,
205 A.2d 83 (New Jersey, 1964)
Jefferson offers insight on Due Process and Equal Application of the Law
"[Our] principles [are] founded on the
immovable basis of equal right and reason." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan,
"An equal application of law to every
condition of man is fundamental." --Thomas Jefferson to George Hay, 1807. ME 11:341
"The most sacred of the duties of a
government [is] to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens." --Thomas
Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy, "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:465
"To unequal privileges among members of
the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas
Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258
"[The] best principles [of our republic]
secure to all its citizens a perfect equality of rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply
to the Citizens of Wilmington, 1809. ME 16:336
"Nothing... is unchangeable but the
inherent and unalienable rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
Liberty is a state
of being and cannot be embodied in the law. Lawful and artful words only serve to
place a fence around liberty, to bind it, to chain it, to alter its form into something
other than liberty. Parenting has been accorded a special class of rights
or parental rights that rise to the level of fundamental liberty.
Our Founding Fathers
grappled with the issue of individual liberty as the tension existing between
two or more equally recognized individual liberty interests--, at their point of
intersection. What they constructed, for the marvel of the modern world, was a
Constitution, which in few words recognized the sovereignty of the citizen, and the
requirement of that sovereignty stopping at the intersection point of anothers
liberty interests. A new nation was born and what was birthed was a Republican form
of government who finds its form in Democratic, people centered government. That
governments purpose was to serve only as umpire and protector of those
rights at their intersection.
At that point of
tension between equal liberty interests, lies the embodiment of equity and justice as
memorialized above the Supreme Court, Equal Justice Under the Law. That
Equal Justice under the law demands that where two fit parents interests in
the companionship, care, custody and management of
equality is the rule rather than the exception.
upon individual liberty, our Founding Fathers saw fit to constrain the state.
During the Constitutional debates, much history was discussed, the history of governments,
of political systems, of peoples nature and motives, and of power--, power of
governments to destroy, to enslave, and to crush through tyranny. A power that
history taught them must be limited. To restrain this powerful big brother
from abusing his smaller siblings and trampling on their individual liberties, a
caretaker, a nanny, even a schoolmaster was employed.
The caretaker of
those liberty interests is the Constitution. And that Constitution finds its nanny,
even its schoolmaster in the core concepts of a more perfect union,
insur[ing] domestic tranquility,
[and] secur[ing] the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity. This schoolmaster dictates that all constructions, interpretations,
and considerations of legislation, order, or law, must promote these principles, or at
least, not be antagonistic to them. In the absence of propagation, any antagonism is
patently unconstitutional, and under the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, states
must avoid this antagonism. In the case of two fit parents, the only
Constitutionally sound decision is equality of parenting, equality under the law, and
natural law equality in the physical relationship.
dealing with marriage, the early court declared [w]e deal with a right of privacy
older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school
system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring,
and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way
of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not
commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as
any involved in our prior decisions. Griswold v.
Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486
The RIGHT of
parenting existed before governments of men, and existed at the first human, or
preter-human birth (a hominid if ones faith is in evolution), LONG BEFORE the zenith
of the laws existence. This RIGHT of parents existed before the
edicts of tyrants, before the sovereign decrees of kings, before the 10 commandments,
before Hammurabis code, before the Magna Carta, and LONG before Constitution of the
Parenting is a special and unique kind of right with certain characteristics that our
Founding Fathers described as natural law in the Federalist papers.
Certainly any "[l]aws abridging the natural right of the citizen should be restrained
by rigorous constructions within their narrowest limits."
If you are a mother, you can almost be absolutely assured that your
consequences for shredding this social contract will be some division of the marital
assets, possibly taking the home and car if you are willing to allege (often falsely) that
you have been somehow abused, some form of personal support, child support,
and the children to reign control over your ex by using them as pawns and tools. You
couldnt do much better on a game show. And there is no lack of family
lawyers to help. We no longer have a no-fault divorce system, we have a
feminist propagandized male-fault system where all women are victims, and all
men are considered child abusers, wife-beaters, rapists, and child molesters. Anyone
studying the feminist propaganda that is rooted in our current justice system,
will quickly discover the level of misandry displayed in custody cases all across the
country. We can now see the absolute destruction, mayhem, chaos, and child abuse
that is promoted through fatherlessness and the breakdown of marriage. Yet serious
proposals to stem this tide are lacking.
There are shrill
detractors of equal parenting parading extreme examples, in a propaganda-like attempt,
insisting these exceptions are the norm. For example, accepting feminist groups
views on matters of a presumption of equal custody, the party line is that all men are
abusers, evil, rapists, and only want custody of the children to abuse them (references
available on request). Lying propaganda is routinely used to dismiss the social
studies demonstrating the importance of fathers. Instead, they push the poisoned
fruit of father-absence and male-hatred down the collective throat of our
culture. Some of that propaganda even includes the idea that ALL of the men on this
committee, in the Congress, in the Judiciary, are rapists, murderers, and child molesters;
this feminist misandry is embraced in a misguided chivalry. So pervasive
and evil is their influence that in allegations of child sexual abuse it is the FATHER who
is targeted for investigation first by the Youth and Family Services organizations
nationwide. Studies show that the biological father is one of the LEAST likely
perpetrators of such a heinous act, and that such confirmed claims, of child sexual abuse,
are generally associated with the paramour of the mother. Or, under the
super-Orwellian (see footnote 1) standards in Domestic violence, no-evidence
is required, merely the fear-thoughts to win the family law game-show
prize of the house, the kids, the car, and the bank accounts, with child and spousal
support to boot!
Under simple equity
rules, if two people have the same constitutional interest in a piece of property, it is
divided equally. Yet in a custody case, where the constitutional interest is
"far more precious than
property rights (May v. Anderson), courts
routinely hamper, or outright RAPE the constitutional rights of a parent (where
fitness is not at issue) in an unconstitutional preference in making a sole custody
determination. After all, "[i]t is well settled that, quite apart
from the guarantee of equal protection, if a law "impinges upon a fundamental right
explicitly or implicitly secured by the Constitution [it] is presumptively
unconstitutional." Harris v. McRae, 448 US 297, 312 (1980). No-fault
divorce is the feminist and lawyer lingo for automatic
men-at-fault-divorce. Only women get no-fault in courtrooms all
across the country--; no matter how many families and children they destroy, its
never their fault.
It is long past time
to end the misguided feminist experiment in marriage destruction and restore the
foundations of Americas families once again. Tie ALL FEDERAL TANF FUNDS to the
constitutional requirement of a presumption of equal physical and legal custody.
poverty is really so destructive to children, simply mandate custody to the higher earning
parent, after all, if it is so destructive, that would be in the childs best
interests. Unless of course, that is another straw man propaganda tactic
advanced by marriage and father hating special interests.
Tie ALL FEDERAL TANF
FUNDS to MANDATORY prosecution for false claims in divorce or custody proceedings and
create a SPECIAL FELONY FRAUD CLASSIFICATION FOR ATTORNEYS THAT PROMOTE THE USE OF FALSE
CLAIMS (its more common than anyone knows, its the ultimate guaranteed father-nuke
in custody proceedings, references available!)